07-28-2008, 10:14 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Time to question</b>
<b>Why are there such gaps in the Centreâs political and procedural response to terror? </b>
Terror is pathology. But so it seems, in India, is the governmentâs response to terror. <b>The one score and some serial bombs in Bangalore and Ahmedabad were met with cringe-inducing official harrumphs from Delhi that warnings had been given. It is time to ask what the Union government means when it says warnings were available. Is it the case that the Centreâs, or specifically the home ministryâs, radars are always buzzing efficiently with actionable information that is not acted upon by inefficient state governments? If so, why doesnât the Centre say it straight? They have a duty to the nation to say it</b>. And if that is not the case, as one strongly suspects is not the case, why take this, to put it bluntly, awful way to pass the parcel? It has to be said, in the context of this trait, that the UPAâs whole approach to terror has been scarily confusing.
The present home minister will demit office as having made a spectacular non-impression as far as his leadership of national security efforts go. <b>It took the prime minister, that too after more than half of the UPAâs term in office was over, to say Naxalites were a high-priority threat to the idea of India. Can you recall the home minister taking political leadership of this national security issue? Can you recall him owning up to his remit as home minister vis-a-vis terror</b>? And letâs remember that while strong and clear political positions are no guarantees against stopping terror, their absence severely weakens the governmentâs fight against it.
More than four years after the UPA took over, not a single terror attack has been brought to closure in terms of catching the perpetrators and putting them through the mills of justice. Thereâs investigative failure of a scale that would have in normal circumstances consumed the career of several ministers â but in the UPA the home ministry seems to have acquired immunity from even the most obvious of questions. Itâs long been known that security agencies are in part handicapped by a certain absurd notion of political correctness â a notion that implicates the very people it professes to protect. <span style='color:red'>The convenient political assumption in India is that voters donât punish governments who appear to be ineffective against terror. This government really has pushed that assumption to its limit.</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Why are there such gaps in the Centreâs political and procedural response to terror? </b>
Terror is pathology. But so it seems, in India, is the governmentâs response to terror. <b>The one score and some serial bombs in Bangalore and Ahmedabad were met with cringe-inducing official harrumphs from Delhi that warnings had been given. It is time to ask what the Union government means when it says warnings were available. Is it the case that the Centreâs, or specifically the home ministryâs, radars are always buzzing efficiently with actionable information that is not acted upon by inefficient state governments? If so, why doesnât the Centre say it straight? They have a duty to the nation to say it</b>. And if that is not the case, as one strongly suspects is not the case, why take this, to put it bluntly, awful way to pass the parcel? It has to be said, in the context of this trait, that the UPAâs whole approach to terror has been scarily confusing.
The present home minister will demit office as having made a spectacular non-impression as far as his leadership of national security efforts go. <b>It took the prime minister, that too after more than half of the UPAâs term in office was over, to say Naxalites were a high-priority threat to the idea of India. Can you recall the home minister taking political leadership of this national security issue? Can you recall him owning up to his remit as home minister vis-a-vis terror</b>? And letâs remember that while strong and clear political positions are no guarantees against stopping terror, their absence severely weakens the governmentâs fight against it.
More than four years after the UPA took over, not a single terror attack has been brought to closure in terms of catching the perpetrators and putting them through the mills of justice. Thereâs investigative failure of a scale that would have in normal circumstances consumed the career of several ministers â but in the UPA the home ministry seems to have acquired immunity from even the most obvious of questions. Itâs long been known that security agencies are in part handicapped by a certain absurd notion of political correctness â a notion that implicates the very people it professes to protect. <span style='color:red'>The convenient political assumption in India is that voters donât punish governments who appear to be ineffective against terror. This government really has pushed that assumption to its limit.</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->